Writing Rubric And Three Types Of Reflective Written Feedback: Students’ Attitude Boosters

Abstract

Different instruments and methods have been integrated in the EFL writing classrooms to enhance students’ writing ability and to boost up their attitudes toward writing in English. A writing rubric and various types of feedback are ones of them. However, no findings from previous studies have revealed impacts of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback on EFL undergraduate students’ attitudes toward writing in English. Therefore, this paper pedagogically aims to raise teachers’ awareness of positive effects of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback on the attitudes of thirty-four English major sophomores at a university in the south of Thailand toward writing in English based on their responses to the questionnaires. According to the results of the present study, the students had positive attitudes toward writing in English because they appreciated the benefits of both the writing rubric and the three types of reflective written feedback. Moreover, these research instruments helped promote their writing proficiency since they helped them improve their language production. Once their writing proficiency gave them a sense of satisfaction, their positive attitudes toward writing in English were, therefore, settled, and vice versa. This pedagogical value highlights the significant roles of both the writing rubric and the three types of reflective written feedback employed in the writing class, especially where English is taught as a foreign language.

Keywords: EFL students’ attitudeswriting in Englishwriting rubricreflective written feedback

Introduction

The role of the English language, the official working language, is becoming significant, particularly in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Kirkpatrick, 2008). As a lingua franca, it, thus, plays a prominent role in the ASEAN context including Thailand, where English is regarded as a foreign language. English proficiency is, thus, perceived as an essential capability for people in all organizations, institutions, or even their everyday lives.

English writing is inevitably an essential skill to master although it is considered as the most difficult language skill to develop or achieve either in the foreign language or second language learning context (Richards & Renandya, 2002; Weigle, 2002). Particularly, the way to express ideas and those complicated skills; for instance, punctuation, word choice, etc. required to master writing are the two important factors that foster the difficulty in writing for L2 students according to Richards and Renandya. Teaching writing, hence, receives more attention in both foreign and second language academic contexts. In so doing, a process-based approach is practically used in teaching writing nowadays to compensate what a traditional product-based approach lacks. Therefore, process skills are also the significant attributes for L2 students to develop (Richards & Renandya, 2002). When a certain skill seizes its role in the academic context, a process of assessment is definitely required. Both authentic and formative assessments are, consequently, integrated in the process-based approach in the present study as Wanchid (2013) claims that "The use of alternative assessment in the EFL writing class yields undeniable benefits, as it encourages students to develop a sense of independent learning in various degrees of success" (p. 164).

The rubric is not only an authentic assessment, but also the summative and valuable informative feedback (Overmeyer, 2009). With an integration of the rubric in the classroom, students acknowledge their learning targets, for they can develop and finally reach such learning goals (Brookhart, 2013). Moreover, Andrade (2005) stresses the significance of feedback that "feedback is profoundly educative" (p. 29). Thus, feedback from different sources, especially the specific one, is significant in language learning and development. It is even more important than the rubric because of some of its constraints, particularly some traits that cannot be referred in the rubric (Wilson, 2007). Self-reflective feedback, for instance, is the feedback promoting student-centered pedagogy as it encourages students to take responsibility for their own language learning and improvement. In the writing class, this type of feedback develops autonomous writers (Kasule & Lunga, 2010; Wanchid, 2013). Peer reflective feedback, moreover, is another effective feedback according to the results from a number of studies (Asl, 2018; Azarnoosh, 2013; Liu & Chai, 2006; Srichanyachon, 2012a; Srichanyachon, 2012b). In the peer feedback process, students can learn from each other in order to develop their writing skill (Liu & Chai). This role which previously belongs to the teacher in the traditional writing class is now shared by students. Learner-centred class is, as a consequence, developed in the writing pedagogy (Azarnoosh, 2013). Finally, teacher feedback, the most preferred feedback, is the kind of feedback students rely on (Srichanyachon, 2012a). Mack (2009) points out five characteristics of effective teacher feedback: (1) formative, (2) timely, (3) specific (errors), (4) problem-solving, and (5) criteria engaging. Most importantly, Wen (2013) highlights that teacher feedback should "lead the students to become independent of the teacher's instructions" (p. 430).

Concerning the value of the writing rubric as well as the three types of reflective written feedback, a controversial issue regarding their pros and cons has been widely discussed in diverse academic contexts. Furthermore, positive attitudes toward writing in English of students across different levels in diverse academic contexts have been driven by different language teaching instruments or methods according to a variety of studies. Nevertheless, no findings of those studies have shed light on the issue being presented in the present study. For this reason, the present study aims to investigate the undergraduate students' attitudes toward writing in English whether their experience in the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback will have any positive influence on their attitudes toward writing in English or not.

Problem Statement

Concerning the value of the writing rubric as well as the three types of reflective written feedback, a controversial issue regarding their pros and cons has been widely discussed in diverse academic contexts. Furthermore, positive attitudes toward writing in English of students across different levels in diverse academic contexts have been driven by different language teaching instruments or methods according to a variety of studies. Nevertheless, no findings of those studies have shed light on the issue being presented in the present study. For this reason, the present study aimed to investigate the undergraduate students' attitudes toward writing in English whether their experience in the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback would have any positive influence on their attitudes toward writing in English or not.

Research Questions

The present study was conducted in order to answer the major research question: What were the students’ attitudes toward writing in English after the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback in their writing class?

Purpose of the Study

This study aimed to discover the effects of the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback in EFL writing class on the students’ attitudes toward writing in English.

In the study, three operational terms, namely writing rubric, attitudes, and reflective written feedback were defined as follows:

1. Writing Rubric: the six-trait rubric adapted from Teacher Six-Point Writing Guide according to Spandel (2009)

2. Attitudes: students’ attitudes toward writing in English both before and after an implementation of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback

3. Reflective Written Feedback: two types of feedback: formative feedback; that is, self-reflective written feedback and peer-reflective written feedback, and summative feedback; that is, teacher-reflective written feedback

The three types of feedback can be classified into the following two categories:

3.1 Direct Reflective Written Feedback: the explicit corrective feedback on students’ writing given by the students themselves, their peers, as well as the teacher

3.2 Indirect Reflective Written Feedback: two kinds of feedback as follows:

3.2.1 the indication by drawing a circle where an error has been made in the subjects’ writing by the subjects themselves, their peers, and the teacher

3.2.2 the written feedback in the subjects’ native language in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the subjects’ writing reflected by the subjects themselves, their peers, and the teacher.

Research Methods

Findings

The pre- and post- treatment attitude questionnaires consisted of sixteen items with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Thirty-four subjects' responses to both questionnaires were analyzed for the mean scores to see the level of their attitudes toward each statement both before and after the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback in the writing class. The results are illustrated in Table 01 as follows.

However, the results reported in Table 01 cannot statistically show any significant difference between the subjects’ responses to the two sets of questionnaires. Thus, the results are further compared by using a paired samples t-test in order to discover whether there was any significant difference of their attitudes toward writing in English after using the writing rubric and the three types of reflective written feedback or not. The results are consequently shown in Table 02 .

According to Table 02 , it is worth noting that the mean scores of the subjects' responses to eight items significantly increased after the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback. That is, their positive perception that writing in English was fun and enjoyable significantly increased after the use of writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback. Although it was still in the same level, agree, for the first item (item 1, t = -3.321, p < .01), it did significantly increase and fall into the level of agree in the post-treatment whereas it was at the level of neutral in the pre-treatment (item 2, t = -2.562, p < .05). Moreover, there was a significant difference in terms of self-satisfaction with their own English writing and their confidence in writing in English after the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback. Both of them were at the level of disagreement before the treatment, but they significantly increased and fell into the level of neutral after the treatment (item 7, t = -4.546, p < .01; item 8, t = -2.402, p < .05). Therefore, the subjects unquestionably reported that they preferred to write their ideas down in English after the treatment as a significant difference was found in item 12 from the level of disagreement to neutral (t = -3.021, p ≤ .01). Furthermore, the mean scores of the subjects’ positive attitudes toward their writing proficiency significantly increased after the treatment although it still remained in the same level of agreement: disagreement (item 10, t = -3.258, p < .01). However, a significant difference was found in item 11 (t = -2.474, p < .05) which means that the subjects reported to have fewer problems when they expressed their ideas in English after using the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback. As you can see, the mean score of their attitudes fell into the level of neutral after the treatment while it was at the level of disagree before the treatment. Nevertheless, the result surprisingly showed that the subjects’ attitudes toward the importance of writing in English in their future career significantly decreased; that is, from strongly agree to agree (item 5, t = 2.044, p ≤ .05).

According to the findings, the subjects generally had quite positive attitudes toward writing in English both before and after the integration of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback: self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback into the writing class. However, their positive attitudes toward writing in English significantly increased in only six aspects: (1) enjoyment of writing in English, (2) significance of writing in English, (3) self-satisfaction of their own English writing performance, (4) self-confidence in writing in English, (5)less difficulty in expressing their ideas in written English, and (6) preference to express their ideas in the English written form based on eight items: item 1, item 2, item 5, item 7, item 8, item 10, item 11, item 12. This highlights the benefits of the use of both the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback. The same result is also presented in Andrade and Du’s study (2005), Hisatsune’s study (2008), and Kasule and Lunga’s study (2010). In this case, the value of rubric and feedback was found to promote students’ learning goal-setting, self-assessment, self-confidence, autonomous language learning and development, and especially the student-centred writing pedagogy as affirmed by Andrade (2005), Brookhart (2013), Overmeyer (2009), and Wilson (2007).

As a result, some profound pedagogical issues are raised for helping teachers effectively teach writing in English by integrating the writing rubric as well as three types of reflective written feedback in their writing classes, especially in the academic context where English is taught as a foreign language.

Conclusion

The present study is significant in its nature. It is one of very few, if any, to explore EFL students' attitudes toward writing in English after using the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback; that is, self-reflective written feedback, peer-reflective written feedback, and teacher-reflective written feedback in the Thai academic context. According to the EFL students' responses to both pre- and post- treatment questionnaires, the students' positive attitudes toward writing in English were boosted up in some certain degree, especially in six features: (1) enjoyment of writing in English, (2) significance of writing in English, (3) self-satisfaction of their own English writing performance, (4) self-confidence in writing in English, (5) less difficulty in expressing their ideas in written English, and (6) preference to express their ideas in the English written form. With regard to the findings and certain limitations of the study, some recommendations for future studies are given as follows.

1.The correlation between the students' attitudes toward writing in English after the use of the writing rubric and three types of reflective written feedback and their competence in writing in English should be considered in further studies to see if they are significantly related or not.

2.To confirm the findings of the current study, this study should be replicated with the subjects with different demographic information, for instance, the sample size, the level of education, the period of time, the academic context, etc to see whether the same findings will be given: whether the students will have positive attitudes toward writing in English or not.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of my paper, their constructive feedback, and their helpful suggestions. This study was supported by Department of Western Languages Research Fund, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Thaksin University, Thailand.

References

1. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: the good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-30.
2. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1-11.
3. Asl, M. P. (2018). Practices of counter-conduct as a mode of resistance in Middle East women’s life writings. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 24(2), 195-205. DOI:
4. Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship bias. Learning Testing in Asia, 3(11), 1-10.
5. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. USA: ASCD.
6. Hisatsune, A. (2008). Better writing with a writing rubric. In JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings. Japan: Tokyo.
7. Kasule, D., & Lunga, V. (2010). Attitudes of second language students towards self-editing their own written texts. Reading and Writing, 1(1), 61-72.
8. Kirkpatrick, A. (2008). English as the official working language of the association of Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today, 24(2).27-34.
9. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
10. Liu, M., & Chai, Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer reviews and reaction to peer feedback in Chinese EFL writing class. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 33-51.
11. Mack, L. (2009). Issues and dilemmas: what conditions are necessary for effective teacher written feedback for ESL learners? Polyglossia, 16, 33-39.
12. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocoates, Inc.
13. Mongomery, K. (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34-39.
14. Overmeyer, M. (2009). What student writing teaches us: Formative assessment in the writing workshop. Colorado: Stenhouse Publishers.
15. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Spandel, V. (2009). Creating writers through 6-trait writing: Assessment and instruction. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
17. Spendlove, D. (2009). Putting assessment for learning into practice. London: Continuum International Publisher Group.
18. Srichanyachon, N. (2012a). An investigation of university EFL students' attitudes toward peer and teacher feedback. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(26), 558-562.
19. Srichanyachon, N. (2012b). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners' writing development. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 12(1), 7-17.
20. Wanchid, R. (2013). The use of self-correction, paper-pencil peer feedback and electronic peer feedback in the EFL writing class: Opportunities and challenges. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(3), 157-164.
21. Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Wen, Y. (2013). Teacher written feedback on L2 student writings. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 427-431.
23. Wilson, M. (2007). Why I won’t be using rubrics to respond to students’ writing. English Journal, 96(4), 62-66.